The Prime Minister's interview with "Abu Ali Express" exposes the weakness of a defensive mindset. Now, approaching Israel’s 80th year, the country requires leadership that acts and shapes the future — not one that merely reacts and waits. an important article Attorney Michael Sperber wrote
Published in Hebrew on Channel 14 and translated into English by the Sovereignty Movement. For the original Hebrew
Sovereignty as a Decision: From Defensive Rhetoric to Political Maturity
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent remarks on Telegram, in an interview with "Abu Ali Express", saying: “If they take unilateral steps against us, we can also take unilateral steps,”
may sound at first glance like a bold political statement meant to reinforce Israel’s strength — both internally and externally. In reality, however, these words embody the height of Israel's defensive way of thinking: not an independent move to shape reality, but a declaration of reaction.
Sovereignty or political action is presented as a consequence of an external move, not as an independent decision of a free people and a regional power that should be setting the public agenda — not chasing after it.
Moreover, the statement itself creates political self-binding. If you frame sovereignty over Judea and Samaria as conditional on "the other's move", you’ve shackled yourself: as long as no external step is taken — you are prevented from acting, by handcuffs you’ve put on yourself, unnecessarily. With one sentence, Israel is transformed from a free and sovereign actor into one dependent on the actions of others. Particularly when these "others" — many European nations, along with Canada and Australia — often operate in anti-Israel and even antisemitic ways, driven by clearly pro-Islamic motives.
The Legacy of Reaction — From Ghetto Mentality to a State
This pattern is deeply rooted in our people's history during centuries of exile. In most of their host countries, Jews were unable to initiate — only to react. Decrees, edicts, or pogroms shaped community life. From this emerged a mentality of adaptation, caution, vigilance, and waiting.
With the establishment of the State in 1948, Zionism aimed to break this mindset — yet it keeps resurfacing in Israeli policy. The old phrase "What will the nations say?" became a warning sign that often prevented decisions, keeping Israel locked in a reactive posture.
Even in Israel’s early wars, actions were almost always framed defensively: “We didn’t want to — we had to”, or “Israel will know how to respond at the right time and place.” Even political actions — from the Oslo Accords to the Disengagement — were explained as responses to external pressures, not as proactive strategies to shape the region’s future.
Ben-Gurion — A Model of Decision
Standing in opposition to this pattern is David Ben-Gurion. The declaration of statehood on the 5th of Iyar, 1948, was a historic and unequivocal decision. The U.S. warned against it and about the consequences of withholding support. Arab states threatened full invasion. The British still held partial control over the land. And yet, Ben-Gurion declared: “The Jewish people arose in the Land of Israel, and by virtue of our natural and historic right, and based on the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, we hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel — the State of Israel.”
He didn’t wait for others to act. He set the facts on the ground. He dictated the agenda and let others be the ones to respond to the meaningful steps he, as the leader of the young state, had taken.
His decision to develop the "textile plant" in Dimona was also a proactive one. Despite internal opposition and external pressure, Ben-Gurion understood that strategic independence is essential for Jewish existence. He didn’t “respond” to a concrete threat — he shaped the future. A brave and vital step that, among other things, secured Israel’s survival and strength for generations.
Begin and the Iraqi Reactor — Shaping Reality
On June 7, 1981, Menachem Begin made a decision that shocked the world: to destroy Iraq's nuclear reactor. Israeli Air Force jets took off and struck the reactor before it was completed.
Begin didn’t wait for Saddam Hussein to aim nuclear missiles at Israel. He preempted the scenario and shaped policy according to Israel’s needs. After the strike, he said: “Under no circumstances will we allow an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against our people. We will protect Israeli citizens, in time, by all means at our disposal”. That is the language of decision, not reaction
The entire world condemned the action. The UN Security Council passed a unanimous resolution of condemnation. The U.S. initially sided with the international community against Israel and even temporarily froze arms shipments. But in historical hindsight, that operation is now recognized as one that reshaped the Middle East and preserved Israel’s safety.
In 1991, after the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq, American Defense Secretary Dick Cheney sent the Israeli Embassy in Washington a U.S. satellite photo of the bombed reactor with a note that read: “With thanks and appreciation — you made our mission in Desert Storm easier.”
Between Reaction and Decision — Contrasting Examples
Operation Kadesh (1956): Israel was dragged into the conflict alongside France and Britain to counter Egypt's hostile takeover of the Suez Canal. A significant military achievement for Israel — ultimately dissolved under U.S. and Soviet pressure. Reactive policy, not shaping or deciding.
· Six-Day War (1967): A proactive, preemptive move that reshaped the Middle East. A clear example of decisive action.
· Oslo Accords (1993): Born from international dynamics and American/European pressure — not from a well-planned, long-term Israeli initiative.
· Disengagement (2005): Presented as a response to demographics and international pressure. Adaptation — not a decision. Today, many understand the gravity of the mistake made.
· Elimination of top Iranian leadership (2024) and the “Beepers Affair”: A bold, sophisticated, proactive operation. Israel initiated, surprised, and set a new agenda, significantly weakening the effectiveness of the “Iranian axis of evil.”
From Survival Test to Growth Through Strength
Caution was understandable during Israel’s first decades. The country faced a survival test: repeated wars, diplomatic isolation, economic hardships, mass immigration, and arms embargoes.
But that test has been passed. Today's Israel is a regional power with unprecedented military, economic, and technological strength in Jewish history — with no true rival in the region.
Those who think small — act small. Those who think big — act big. A policy of decisiveness comes from strength, not from weakness. Instead of containment and waiting, Israel must shift to a policy of change and design.
Internalizing October 7
The events of October 7, 2023, revealed the cost of defensive thinking. Years of “deterrence,” “conflict management,” and “containment” collapsed in a single day. This national trauma demands internalization: no more reactions — decisions. No more adaptation — shaping.
This is Israel’s coming-of-age moment. As the state approaches its 80th year, survival is no longer enough. This is a time of growth through strength.
Just as Ben-Gurion and Begin made decisions that changed the region, the current leadership must now say clearly: Israel does not wait for the Belgians or the French. Not for the Australians or Canadians. Not for the EU and not for the UN. Israel determines its future based on its own strength.
Conclusion
When the Prime Minister says: “If they recognize a Palestinian state, we’ll declare sovereignty in Judea and Samaria,”
he is not only expressing weakness — he is binding Israel to a reactive policy.
It’s time to change course. Sovereignty is a fateful decision — not a response to pressure.
Shaping the Middle East from a place of Jewish strength — not adapting to foreign demands — is the historical maturity required from Israel in 2025.
Ben-Gurion stood up in 1948 and said: “Now.”
Begin did so in 1981 and said: “Now.”
We too, after October 7, must say:
“Now. Not reaction — decision.
Not bowing heads — shaping the future.
Not ‘what will the nations say (or do),’ but ‘what will the Jews do.’
And if not now — when?!?”
Attorney Michael Sperber